Pryor currently sits on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Atlanta. But his duty station, and his office, are at the Hugo Black Courthouse in Birmingham. He lives at 2474 Tyler Rd. in the Birmingham suburb of Vestavia Hills. From the ATL report, by founder and managing editor David Lat:

On Saturday afternoon, here in cold and snowy New York, President-elect Donald Trump interviewed Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The opportunity to meet with PEOTUS to talk about SCOTUS must have lifted Judge Pryor’s spirits, in the wake of the loss of his beloved Crimson Tide in Monday’s football championship.

The news of a Trump/Pryor meeting, while notable, is not surprising. At last week’s press conference, Trump said that SCOTUS meetings are underway and we should expect a nominee within two weeks of inauguration day. And Judge Pryor, beloved by conservatives, sits at the top of the Trump SCOTUS list.

What are Judge Pryor’s chances of getting nominated? Here’s a big plus for Pryor’s prospects: the ease with which Jeff Sessions sailed through his hearings, making his confirmation as attorney general a near certainty. It helps in at least two ways.

First, Sessions is a major Pryor proponent — and now that Sessions is definitely going to be AG, having killed it at his hearings, his Trumpworld stock is way up and his views enjoy greater sway within the administration.

Sessions and Pryor are close friends and have known each for more than 20 years. They met in 1994, when Sessions was running for Alabama attorney general and a mutual friend introduced them. After Sessions won, he hired Bill Pryor as his deputy attorney general. Sessions cited Pryor’s work for him, among many other factors, when he spoke glowingly about Pryor at his Eleventh Circuit confirmation hearings in 2003 and 2005.

Second, the success of Sessions shows that what gets liberals all hot and bothered isn’t necessarily enough to stop a nominee — and this might encourage the Trump Administration to “go bold,” swing for the fences, and put up Pryor.

Lat is correct that Sessions and Pryor are close. The public soon will learn here at Legal Schnauzer just how close they are -- and have been. Here is how Lat, who holds an undergraduate degree from Harvard and a law degree from Yale, analyzes Pryor's chances:

Judge Pryor, more than any other potential Trump nominee, triggers strong opposition from liberal interest groups — civil rights groups, LGBT groups, and especially pro-abortion groups, who loathe his comments about Roe v. Wade (“worst abomination in the history of constitutional law”). But Jeff Sessions similarly entered his hearings as a hardline conservative with a Louis Vuitton steamer trunk of baggage, including accusations of racism that kept him off the federal bench in 1986.

Bill Pryor house in Vestavia Hills, AL
(From google.com)

One would have thought that if Sessions couldn’t get a federal judgeship — and not even one on the Eleventh Circuit, but on the lowly Southern District of Alabama (no offense, S.D. Ala.) — then he couldn’t get confirmed as attorney general of the United States. But Sessions came out swinging, calling the racism accusations “damnably false,” and proved that a strong performance in confirmation hearings can overcome a lot. (See also Clarence Thomas and his epic “high tech lynching” speech.)

Judge Pryor is very conservative and very outspoken — but he’s also very smart and a stickler for preparation, and he would likely perform well at confirmation hearings. He might not be able to bob and weave around the issues as well as some other nominees, given his paper trail and past pronouncements (and he might not even bother to; recall how he refused to disavow his “Roe is an abomination” comment in his 2005 hearings). But Bill Pryor is not going to self-immolate like Robert Bork in 1987; he’s too shrewd for that. And short of a self-immolation, he has a solid shot of winning confirmation, with 52 Republicans in the Senate . . .

In my view, Lat greatly overrates Pryor's intelligence and shrewdness. But Lat acknowledges that Republican trickery might be needed to get Pryor through:

Could the Democrats filibuster? Yes; the filibuster has not been eliminated for Supreme Court nominees. But as Ilya Shapiro points out, nothing prevents Republicans from exercising the “nuclear option” and eliminating the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, just as the Democrats did for lower-court nominees. And if that’s what it takes to put Judge Pryor on SCOTUS, I could certainly see the Republicans doing it.

Would the Republicans pay a political price for “going nuclear”? Probably not; the Democrats didn’t. And as we learned from what happened to Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s SCOTUS nomination, the American public as a whole doesn’t get that worked up about the Court, at least not if it sounds like “technicalities.” If the American people couldn’t get excited over the Senate’s “advice and consent” duty, they certainly won’t get excited over judicial filibusters. Joe Sixpack will see a vote tally for the Pryor nomination in the newspaper the next day — even a straight party-line vote, 52-48 — and will think to himself, “Guy won a majority, sounds fair to me!”

Hope folks don't forget Pryor started the state investigation of Don Siegelman, which morphed into a federal investigation. It will go down in history as the most blatant political prosecution in U.S. history. Bill Pryor started it.

Well, I do know where he lives. So do you. It's public information. There's no threat about it. If Pryor can't handle that kind of thing, he needs to get out of public life. We'd all be better off if he did.

You pose the question of whether the gay porn allegations will come up during the confirmation hearing if Pryor gets nominated. The answer to that is no. But not for the reasons you state. Ever wonder why no one else argues that picture you constantly run is Bill Pryor? Because that isn't him. If there was any merit to this "story" the mainstream press or bloggers like you would be all over it. Does your buddy Donald Watkins make the same argument (I ask this because I don't know - I don't read his stuff)? The fact you don't like him for his rulings, you blame him for having you thrown in jail, etc give you a basis for opposing him for his current position or any possible elevation to SCOTUS. But give the gay porn angle a rest.

(1) I've had at least six individuals -- including several who knew Bill Pryor at that age in college at Monroe, LA -- identify the nude person as Judge Bill Pryor. One has provided details about an intimate gay encounter with a college-aged Bill Pryor. So, you might want to give that a rest.

(2) When the Pryor/gay story first came out it was widely covered, with probably more than two dozen Web sites running the photo and reporting on story etc. Your statement in that regard is not true. Bloggers have been all over the story, and they will be again soon.

(3) What makes you think Donald Watkins and I are "buddies." We aren't, and anything he writes on FB has zero impact on what I cover.

(4) I've never had Pryor rule on a case of mine. I do believe he works behind the scenes as a fixer, and that has been reported elsewhere.

The gay-porn angle might make you uncomfortable, but you will just have to deal with it. It's real, and I've done the legwork to know; you haven't done any legwork, would be my guess.

7:56 here - of course I haven't done any "legwork" on this. I have a real job that pays real money, and don't have time to pursue or attempt to verify this silly story.

I am sure your sources are solid. That is why Pryor has gone through the equivalent of a colonoscopy with his nomination to the 11th circuit and none of this stuff came up.

Two dozen websites "reporting" something means nothing. Two dozen legitimate news organizations who observe proper journalistic sourcing, vetting and verification would be a different story. A bunch of men or women sitting in their basement blogging does not lend credibility to a story or claim.

You slobbered all over Watkins knob regarding the Rebecca Mason story and some others. Maybe I mistook your comments and quotes of his posts as some sort of admiration society.

I am not uncomfortable with the gay porn angle. I just think it is stupid and tired.

You don't even realize how stupid sound -- you are almost Trumpian in that regard, and that is not intended as a compliment.

You originally said that no one had covered the story. When shown that is wrong, you say no one of significance (by your measure) has covered the story. Weak, weak.

You claim the photo isn't Pryor, but you admit you are much too busy with your big-time job (what do you do, change the oils at Jiffy Lube?) that you can't be bothered to give serious thought to the matter.

You say no one of any substance has covered the story, but you call it "tired." That suggests you've seen it a lot somewhere. You follow lots of journalists with no substance? I thought you were too busy for that.

You are trying, and failing, to con me. But you are successfully conning yourself.